Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mike712 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Mike712 wrote:
The 40k rule-set has potential in it

Really? What potential do you see in the rules? IMO what 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning to get rid of awful mechanics like the IGOUGO turn structure and the D6 stat lines.

Amen.

I've had an idea playing in my head for quite a while. A mixing of what I find best in the games I play. Streamlined stats based on troop types all across factions (Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Armoured Infantry, etc). A turn sequence based heavily off Infinity (with the exception of a 'moral status' rule which either allows or limits AROs based on the status (either Ready, Spent, Broken or Panicked) of the unit). Limitations on the amount of dice throwing (only one dice to to both hit/wound), different armour rules (giving armour values only to vehicules and armoured troops) and a Living Card Game system to replace Reserve and the Army Org system and to include a bit of strategic gameplay above the table gameplay.

Which would leave the game looking nothing like 40k, and more like a frankenstein monster built from 40k, Wm/H, Infinity and Netrunner.

I'm going to start polls soon, to see if everyone thinks the project should focus on a adaptation of the current rules or a complete re-write.

I think you'll face the problem of trying to please too many people at the same time. Thing is, if more people tackled this issue, and actually produced sets of modded or re-written rules for GW games, you'd start seeing the interest. What I'd suggest would be to create a modding community, intent on helping and motivating each other to actually work on those rules, and playtest those of each other.

It's sad, but you'll get people decide they'll stay away from a game idea for the stupidest/most meaningless reasons. You'll lose interest the second you say ''D10'', when ''D10'' is, over ''D6'', an absolutely superior option. I expect quite a few GW players would look at the list of ideas I've listed, read 'Living Card Game' and immediatly thought ''lol nope'' simply on principle.

Oh : BS should be thrown against a difficulty rating. Give each ranged weapon a Increment stat (like 4 for pistols, 8 for a Boltgun, 10 for a Lasgun), and have difficulty equal to the number of increments between the target and the point of origins, plus modifiers for stuff like snipers and cover.

 Kojiro wrote:
Tell me xruslanx, which systems- and why- is IGOUGO superior to?

Anyone can claim 'I enjoy X the best!' and even mean it.

I'll say it again- interaction is reason we have an opponent. Interaction makes things dynamic, shifting and brings more of the player to the table. These are good things, no? Make an argument for a lack of interaction if you're so in favour ot it. Stop claiming it's the best and explain why it is and don't use subjective (ie your personal enjoyment) to justify it.

I explained above the advantages of IGOUGO. You can't seem to explain the disadvantages without simply saying "well you've not played other game systems". What exactly is the advantage of a system with 5 minutes in between plays, over a system with 25 minutes between plays? It seems obvious that the larger amount of play-time a single player has allows for more advanced tactical play, since it involves less variables on the opponent's behalf.

If you'd like to offer an explanation for the advantages of alternatives I'm all ears.

xruslanx wrote:
I enjoy watching my opponent manouvre his forces, planning counter-attacks, contemplating what he'll shoot at, wondering where i'll deep strike - if he wipes out x unit then i'll deep-strike there, if he shoots at y unit then i'll deep-strike there. I enjoy watching my opponent's movements unfold like a battleplan as I sit and plot my response - how is that "objectively inferior" to anything?

So, you enjoy seeing what youre opponent does, whilst simultaneously not being able to do anything about it? this is not actually an objective look as to why the mechanics are superior.

xruslanx wrote:
I never said that 40k was "as good as it gets", or that it is flawless - indeed its flaws are many, and I would be happy to discuss them.

you're being intellectually dishonest again. how many threads have been waded through where folks listed a huge amount of the failings of the 40k game (bloated, and excessive game mechanics, cluttered, counter intuitive, cobbled together, and essentially byzantine resolution methods, lack of playtesting, proofreading, c lack of direction etc) where you simply ignore them?

xruslanx wrote:
But if the *only* way that people can rationalise a critisism of 40k is by saying "try other rulesets", it leads me to believe that 40k is - more or less - as good as a game with such a large scope can be.

Incorrect. and a flawed perspective. Why is it you are so adamant about refusing to accept or acknowledge the (a) existence, (b) validity and (c) relevance of other games, and what they bring to the table? 40k is not in a world of its own, its one horse in a rather large and growing stable. You cannot accurately discuss the merits and flaws of anything without direct comparisons to its peers. you were happy to bring computer games as comparisons into one of your previous threads (along with sex with animals) but you refused to acknowledge more relevant comparisons with other TTGs.
40k is not as good a game with such a large scope can be (and this can clearly be demonstrated with both many examples of poor rules writing, poor and sloppy implementation of said rules, and with any discussion of the merits and faults of its in-game mechanics) . other games play the company level engagement far better than 40k, but again, you refuse to accept their existence. And im sorry, but "i dont play them" is not an excuse,(it doesnt make them disappear), especially when the mechanics they use are brought up, shown and explained.

but then again, your only experience of wargames is 40k. and you refuse to look beyond it, or acknowledge whatever else is out there. its no wonder your perspective is so narrow and flawed, considering you have no other measure with which to develop your opinions.

xruslanx wrote:
I would love to read a logical argument for how 40k could be improved while - and this is important - retaining the depth and diversity of 40k.

(1) having a defined 'direction', 'scale' and 'scope' for what 40k is meant to be. right now, its a mess. it tries to be a company level game, with bolted on additions more suitable for larger games like epic, whilst simultaneously using model based micromanagement far more suitable for a warband, or skirmish game. in the end, all these subtract from each other. Also, this defined direction must be maintained. I've seen it too often where GW changes direction (eg the back to basics codices - chaos, dark angels from fifth followed by the more overblown matt ward era grey knights, space wolves and other OOT codices). All books should be based on the same direction to maintain balance.
(2) buildin mechanics specifically to represent the scope (and not just bolting on 'moar stuff'' as they do now) rather than using 30year old mutated napoleonic rules sets. Using a modern, or current system.
(3) taking objective feedback from the community, and accepting external playtesting.
(4) Clear, tight, and unambiguous rules writing, with accurate, up to date and complete FAQs and erratas.

Please note, none of this comes at the expense of depth and diversity - actually it will increase both.

xruslanx wrote:
Saying "it should have less rule inconsistancies" is pointless. Yes, everything should have as few mistakes as possible, and maybe 40k should have less than it does. But that's not a philosophical argument, and by and large pointless.

Its far from pointless my good man. its simulatenously philosophical, mechanical and practical. youre rejecting the notion that it should be designed to be as clear, and as tight as possible and saying its irrelevant when any amount of chat on the subject will tell you the opposite.

how is it that in the same breath you both acknowledge that there are faults, that there should be less faults, but that its irrelevant and 'pointless' to discuss them? i know politicians that arent as good at weaseling out of arguments and facts as you are.

xruslanx wrote:
I explained above the advantages of IGOUGO. You can't seem to explain the disadvantages without simply saying "well you've not played other game systems". What exactly is the advantage of a system with 5 minutes in between plays, over a system with 25 minutes between plays? It seems obvious that the larger amount of play-time a single player has allows for more advanced tactical play, since it involves less variables on the opponent's behalf.

If you'd like to offer an explanation for the advantages of alternatives I'm all ears.

with respect, but no, you didnt. you basically said you enjoy watching your opponent do his stuff whilst you cant actually do anything about it, you like to think about what you will do.

larger amount of time is just that: a larger amount of time. Warmachine is an IGOYOUGO game, except its Steamroller rules have timed turns (7minute turns for 35pt games, 10minute turns for 50pt games, with a number of extensions allowed). Believe me, having timed turns makes the game a lot more tense and exciting. you cant make mistakes. you cant just hum, or haw. you have a plan, put that plan in motion, make your moves, and commit without any time for mistakes. 25minute turns? yeah, i'll go and have my dinner, thanks! WIth other games like Infinity, or the old Starship Troopers, the ARO and reaction mechanisms make the game a lot more interactive. its not just about watching your enemies carefully laid plans unfold. you can actively throw a spanner in the works, which makes me feel like im always engaging in the game. No one wants to let his enemies plans entirely unfold whilst doing nothing but watching. Nothing frustrated me more when i plated 40k than seeing rhinos, assault marines and land raiders drive up to within an inch of my guys, deloy their troops, casually spend a round shooting and then wade into melee whilst my guys did nothing. So, when melee came about, i could fight back then, but when the other guy was moving, shooting etc, i had to stand there and take it, with no avenue to react or counter? you know, i can react to him punching me, but i cant react to him driving to within 2" of my position? I cant react to his shooting by shooting back? I cant try and pin his assault elements in place? No, i have to let him have his cake and eat it. Yeah, thats disengagement from the game, right there.

I think psychoticstorm did a great analysis earlier of the strenths of igoyougo, and alternative activation:

IGOUGO is an activation method, it has the advantage of providing a player the means to make more coherent use of his forces elements and formulate a more coordinated strategy.

Its disadvantages are that there are no means to use your elements in direct response to your opponents use, there are many reaction mechanisms used in many game systems to counter this from the plainer "overwatch" style reaction used in 40k 2nd edition to the more sophisticated (and the best up to date in my opinion) ARO of Infinity.

Alternative Activation is an activation method in which each players elements take turn, one at a time, this increases the players ability to respond on opponents actions, but has the disadvantage of been incoherent and making the use of elements synergy problematic, there are mechanics like delay that can allow players to make more coherent use of their force.

to be fair, i think IGOYOUGO has evolved since the advent of Andy Chambers' Starship Troopers to have/want/need some kind of mechanism of reactions. despite what peregrine seems to think, that is the more 'modern' IGOYOUGO template. its evolution. and games have benefited from it.

xruslanx wrote:
I explained above the advantages of IGOUGO.

You have? Let's quickly filter the thread to find your explanation...

You! wrote:I could "balance" the IG codex in about 5 minutes, i daresay most people could do the same for their codex.

Nope. No explanation there.

You! wrote:Only if the plural of democracy is democratos, the plural of philosophy is philosophos. You get the picture.

None there either.

You! wrote:Are you saying that IGOUGO is objectively bad?

That's more of a question that an explanation.

You! wrote:Your proof that IGOUGO is objectively bad...is that you don't enjoy it.

Nope. No explanation here either.

You! wrote:I enjoy watching my opponent manouvre his forces, planning counter-attacks, contemplating what he'll shoot at, wondering where i'll deep strike - if he wipes out x unit then i'll deep-strike there, if he shoots at y unit then i'll deep-strike there. I enjoy watching my opponent's movements unfold like a battleplan as I sit and plot my response - how is that "objectively inferior" to anything?

This is you explaining what you like about IGOUGO, not you explaining its advantages. You might think the above quote of yours is an explanation, but really, to (mis)quote your own words:

Your proof that IGOUGO is objectively good... is that you do enjoy it?

Perigrine stated that IGOUGO was objectively inferior. If a game - something that is designed to be *fun* to the people who play it - cannot be judged on how much enjoyment the people who play it garner, then it cannot be judged at all.

That's not an explanation. That's... I don't even know what that is. Red Herring, at best. You're attempting to shift focus away from the actual question. Someone asked if you were a politician, and I'm beginning to wonder that myself.

I have to break the next quote in two:

You can't judge something that is designed to be fun, then declare that peoples' fun experiences with it are irrelevent.

"Designed to be fun" is an utterly meaningless statement and an even less useful "measure" of something's worth. Designed to be fun? What the hell else was it designed for? To be torturous? To cook toast?

If peregrine (or you) doesn't enjoy IGOUGO, for whatever reason, then fine. But to claim that it is objectively inferior to alternatives is untrue.

But you've yet to explain why it's untrue (despite repeatedly saying that you have... which you haven't).

I was going to post something sarcastic and scathing but you did it for me

We've already covered that you don't know the meaning of the word "sarcastic" (or irony, it seems), so I won't go any further into this one.

And then we come back to your latest:

I explained above the advantages of IGOUGO.

To which I can unequivocally say:

No you haven't. You haven't explained anything. It's almost as if you're familiar with the concept of an argument, but just not really sure how to make one.

xruslanx wrote:
You can't seem to explain the disadvantages without simply saying "well you've not played other game systems".

Selective reading much? Here are some quotes from this very thread, which means you either didn't read them or lack any form of reading comprehension:

In cases where a person cannot 'defend' themselves in an IGOUGO format means that hot dice, 'better tactics', and unbalanced armies can lead to games ending long before their natural conclusion (i.e. turns 5-6). If you and I spend 25 minutes setting up a board, rolling for Warlord Traits and psychic powers, and deploying our armies just to watch me get crippled in turn 1 without a chance to defend myself, what makes that fun?

Most of the issues with an IGOUGO system are limited in skirmish level games due to weapon ranges. In 40k we have weapons that can reach the other side of the board without issue, so you're able to negate the distance setup by deployment zones, force your opponent to spend his turns jumping from cover to cover because to hide out in the open is suicide.

40k's turn system wouldn't be as much of an issue if there were mitigating circumstances that prevented hot dice and overpowered units from decimating an opponent before they got the chance to do anything. The leafblower list from 5th edition basically exploited IGOUGO by using the entirety of their large guns/tanks to cripple choice pieces of your army before you could go/get near them.

When it is army wide and leads to huge alpha strike potential leaving the opponent with nothing to shoot back, yes i'd say yes IGOUGO is objectively bad and needs a shake up.

And to answer the relevant question, yes, IGOUGO is bad. If you replaced saves with rolling to defeat saves (mathematically equal) you could have one player walk away and get lunch while their opponent takes their turn and not miss anything. Having to spend long periods of time watching someone else play the game instead of playing just isn't fun. And that's not even considering the balance issues with alpha strike armies, or the absurdity of trying to explain the fluff of what is going on when a unit charges across half the table and slaughters your troops in melee while they stand around waiting for permission to shoot back.

I said earlier, skirmish games can get away with an IGOUGO system because the idea that you can hit someone from 48 inches away with the weapons is rare in those games.

(Emphasis mine)

It isn't because the defining characteristic of IGOUGO is that I make all of my moves, then you make all of your moves, and we don't interact much while we're doing it.

(Emphasis mine)

The deciding factor is when during a turn each player is acting vs. waiting while the other player acts. IGOUGO and action-reaction are fundamentally different because IGOUGO says "this is my half of the turn, I'm going to do stuff while you watch" while action-reaction says "this is 'my' half of the turn, but you're going to make choices too". So, in 40k if I make a shooting attack the only decisions you get to make are about how you remove your casualties. In Infinity if I make a shooting attack you get to return fire, and that's a very different situation. It's different in terms of keeping you from getting bored while I take my turn, and it's different in terms of making strategic decisions at all times vs. executing your strategy and then waiting while your opponent executes theirs.

His objection ... is that IGOUGO is non interactive. Interacting with your oppoent is the essence of collaboration and competition.

I'll say it again- interaction is reason we have an opponent. Interaction makes things dynamic, shifting and brings more of the player to the table. These are good things, no?

[The disadvantages of IGOUGO] are that there are no means to use your elements in direct response to your opponents use, there are many reaction mechanisms used in many game systems to counter this from the plainer "overwatch" style reaction used in 40k 2nd edition to the more sophisticated (and the best up to date in my opinion) ARO of Infinity.

If you'd like to offer an explanation for the advantages of alternatives I'm all ears.

See all the quotes above. If you can't fathom what people are saying out of that then we'll know it's a lack of reading comprehension. If you can understand the above yet fail to acknowledge it, then I don't know what to think.


So pick one.

Just adding my tuppence worth.
I do not really mind IGOUGO that much, although I guess it could be argued that it is a dated method, originating from basic turn based board games probably.
If I were given a choice I did much prefer the way the old epic rules worked, where each unit was given orders at the start and followed the order sequence. I think that was probably my favourite system ever tbh.

 Rayvon wrote:
I do not really mind IGOUGO that much...

Neither do I, but I do acknowledge that the "alpha strike" issue is a pretty big problem and it won't go away no matter how balanced individual Codices are.

It'd be easy to say "Do what BattleTech does!" and have everything happen simultaneously (ie. I blow up your Land Raider, but you still get to use it as nothing "dies" until the end of the turn when all casualties are removed), but again we have to come back to the scale of 40K. In BTech that works because (as I mentioned earlier) a lot of the analogue parts of the game (movement, terrain, LOS, range, etc.) are taken away from the players and digitised in the form of hex-grid map sheets*. This means players have to concern themselves less with measuring those things (as there's no ambiguity when you use a hex grid as everything is binary - either in range or not, either in LOS or not - no kneeling over for LOS checks, no vagaries of tape measures and no Imperial Measurement System) and have more headspace to look after their units. And as everything happens at the same time, there's a much lower chance that your [Powerful Unit X] will be annihilated before it can have its first turn.

40K, if the assumption is made that the scale will stay the same (ie. sub-Marine Company sized game and lower), then non-IGOUGO systems can become rather cumbersome, as you're going back and forth with multiple units. Easy in a Draigo Wing, sure. Harder with Guard and 'Nids I'd wager.



*I know BTech has full miniature rules, but I'm specifically referring to the standard method that BTech is played.

What do you think about interleaved phases?
So players get to perform ONE action with all their army before the opposing player gets to perform an action with all their army.

Or interleaved phases with order counters, so you have more options of what units do what and when.

xruslanx wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
Tell me xruslanx, which systems- and why- is IGOUGO superior to?

Anyone can claim 'I enjoy X the best!' and even mean it.

I'll say it again- interaction is reason we have an opponent. Interaction makes things dynamic, shifting and brings more of the player to the table. These are good things, no? Make an argument for a lack of interaction if you're so in favour ot it. Stop claiming it's the best and explain why it is and don't use subjective (ie your personal enjoyment) to justify it.

I explained above the advantages of IGOUGO. You can't seem to explain the disadvantages without simply saying "well you've not played other game systems". What exactly is the advantage of a system with 5 minutes in between plays, over a system with 25 minutes between plays? It seems obvious that the larger amount of play-time a single player has allows for more advanced tactical play, since it involves less variables on the opponent's behalf.

If you'd like to offer an explanation for the advantages of alternatives I'm all ears.

Its hard to have a dscussion with someone who talks alot but doesnt say anything

H.B.M.C.

I see the emphasis above, but I have to say, the IGOUGO as an activation method, does not include the non intractability of elements, this design decision is different to the decision of activation method.

I can actually say that there are alternative activation games out there that have less elements interaction between players turns than IGOUGO systems, but players ignore it because they "will activate their unit next"



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
What do you think about interleaved phases?
So players get to perform ONE action with all their army before the opposing player gets to perform an action with all their army.

Or interleaved phases with order counters, so you have more options of what units do what and when.

Personally, I would like to see a priority activation game with a hidden orders sub phase.

@Psychcotic Storm
How would you structure your proposed game turn?.

What sets the priority for activation, and what role do the hidden orders play?

I am genuinely interested in finding out more detail about this idea of yours...

its something I work on and off for a few years.

Essentially, at the start of the turn the initiative is determined from who has the most victory points from the last turn first turn the attacker.

Players assign "orders" to units, orders are hidden from opponent, "orders" are essentially a restriction to what "actions" the unit can do in this turn, for example a unit assigned "advance orders" can move, shoot, use special actions that are in the Advance group, embark/ disembark and so on.

After all elements have their orders assigned the orders get revealed.

Now comes priority, each element has a tier from 1-5 first all tier 5 elements get to activate starting from the player that has the initiative then the other player can activate a tier 5 element then the player with the initiative does so until there are no more tier 5 elements left then tier 4 elements and so on.

Players remove the order counter/ card from activated units to mark them as used.

Turn ends VPs are counted to determine who gets the initiative next turn in tie the attacker.

How could this adapted to 40k?

Assign actions in groups for example move, run, shoot, ballistic and support Psychic powers to "advance" orders, move, assault, CC, CC psychic assaults to "melee" orders, of course it needs more work than that, each unit could act on two different things from the list per activation.

Then units activate according to either Slot or LD, both are not the best choices, but I try to have the game as less modified in this example as possible.

The problem is this is a system I like and have used in the games I have designed in the past, it is not 40k as people think about.

And this is what the basic question of any balance attempt to 40k should first consider, will they modify the system in a workable modern solution? or keep the theme and make a new system from scratch.

In either case the community will be opposed in general that's understandable in may many ways, but if you do this you should do it for the game design experience, not for anything else.

Psychotic Storm, you've got very close to describing the Darklands rules in a nutshell there.

Fascinating, I would be vastly disappointing if somebody had not used it.

It would mean two things, either I would be an isolated genius, which is strongly improbable (it would also mean it would be really too complicated to be of practical use)

or

It would mean its such a bad game mechanism that nobody likes to use it, which would be far more probable.

As I usually say there is nothing new or innovative in creation.

I will have to look at darklands though.

There are some differences from what you mention, chiefly on how initiative is determined and implemented, but the idea of orders determining what actions a unit can perform and how they perform them is almost lifted straight from the rulebook.

The QuickStart rules and provisional army lists (musters) can be found here...

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mierceminiatures/darklands-a-world-of-war/posts/584781

Thanks Ill give it a look.

People should stop replying to xruslanx, he is just rattling the cage, he isn't engaging in the discussion, he/she/it is just trying to cause controversy.

Great trolling techniques though

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
People should stop replying to xruslanx, he is just rattling the cage, he isn't engaging in the discussion, he/she/it is just trying to cause controversy.

Great trolling techniques though

Lol, the last time I implied he was trolling, he reported me!

Nothing came of it though, read into that what you will.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
People should stop replying to xruslanx...

What would be the fun in that?

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Great trolling techniques though

Trolling would imply he's being contrary on purpose. I don't think that's the case here.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Great trolling techniques though

Trolling would imply he's being contrary on purpose. I don't think that's the case here.

Exactly, it appears to be a wonderful combination of lack of comprehension, unwillingness to learn and refusal to listen.

After reading Darklands, it is quite different but has some nice ideas in it, retaining the initiative is a clever rule, I think they missed a lot with the exhaustion mechanism tied in with the hours (turns) mechanism, they should make it progressively deteriorating and have a "rest" (skip turn) revitalization mechanism, like Saga,

@Psychotic Storm
Thanks for explaining that for me.

Hidden orders that are revealed in the 'action phase' is a VERY good idea used in lots of good battle games.

I think activating at 'initiative' groups determined by VP could be a tad over complicated though for a battle game.(And due to the imbalance in units in 40k probably NOT the most optimal option.)

In a similar way using victory points to determine who activates groups first could get complicated/overpowering.

This sort of game turn mechanic is brilliant in other games, but probably not the best option for 40k ,IMO.(Unless we make MASSIVE adjustments to units,)

Agreed, it was more a suggestion on what I would Ideally love to see than what can realistically happen.

For me personally, unrealistically and improbably the "current" 40k must be remade into 15mm and get abstracted enough to support the company level game, and the current 28mm models become a proper new skirmish game.

This cannot happen for more reasons that I care to count, so the current initiative is an interesting proposal on trying to iron out 40k.

The basic questions remain how much of the 6th will remain intact, will the project focus on rebalancing points cost and clearing up the badly written rules, or be more adventurous in the rules structure and if more adventurous to what extend?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
After reading Darklands, it is quite different but has some nice ideas in it, retaining the initiative is a clever rule, I think they missed a lot with the exhaustion mechanism tied in with the hours (turns) mechanism, they should make it progressively deteriorating and have a "rest" (skip turn) revitalization mechanism, like Saga,

Those are essentially the draft rules, so it is entirely possible things like that will enter the game (there's already a similar action to recover from spell casting)

If there's anything you feel strongly about, I'm sure Rob would be interested to hear it, but I think they're fairly well down the line as far written rules go, the book is due to KS backers in June IIRC, so factor in production and shipping times and they're probably not massively far from final copy.

Mike,

Kudos for initiating action! It is clearly a controversial topic.

I've been involved in a lot of projects and the successful ones always had one thing in common. They all identified what needed change and communicated well. Then there were a series of actions, mostly small, many generated outside the "core team", that showed that something was happening. Visible progress is important.

My suggestion for you is to start small-a small team posting what they see as improvements. Put them up for play testing and see what happens.

I think it is a great initiative, happy to help if I can.

Mark

Although others have done a perfect job of dismantling this it was directed at me so I feel I should answer.

xruslanx wrote:
I explained above the advantages of IGOUGO. You can't seem to explain the disadvantages without simply saying "well you've not played other game systems".

Actually *I* have never said anything of the sort, though I would agree in order to appreciate the difference between any two things direct experience of those things would be beneficial. But I don't think anyone has said a) your like of IGOUO is wrong or not genuine because you're not experienced only that you lack perspective. You're in no position to judge Renegade Legion because you've never played Renegade Legion and so- better or worse than 40K- you cannot even subjectively say let alone objectively.

xruslanx wrote:
What exactly is the advantage of a system with 5 minutes in between plays, over a system with 25 minutes between plays? It seems obvious that the larger amount of play-time a single player has allows for more advanced tactical play, since it involves less variables on the opponent's behalf.

Aside from the interacting with your opponent bit? The fact is that the depth/level to which you're playing is directly proportionate to the amount of, well, playing you're doing.

Let's say we have three games- one where the turns are completely IGOUGO, another where the it's mostly IGOUGO but with with shorter turns and a third with an alternating system. Let us say, for the sake of balance, that each game is using the same number of models (so each player has the same amount of stuff to move/shoot). With me so far?

In game 1, which would cover 40K, you are completely irrelevant to your opponents turn. You do not need to be there except for saves and there is nothing tactical about them- your opponent could make (as Peregrine has said) a 'defeat armour roll' with mathematically identical odds (or even just make the save for you). Your input (or presence) is not required. Now you can certainly be thinking about your next move and planning but that's not unique to this set up. You spend 50% of the game irrelevant and play only against the static end situation you're left with.

In game 2, which would cover something like Warmachine, you still get to watch your opponents plans unfold and plot your next move BUT you're also able to make decisions which affect your opponent during your turn on occasion. Do you want the Drakun to countercharge now, when the solo moves up or not at all? Does Haley want to burn a focus to protect the unit or is Gaspy suckering you in for a spell assassination? Which Errant do you want to remove? Or do you want to Martyrdom him? These are just a few things and they make you more involved. They make your plan deeper and more tactical by the sheer virtue of extending past your turn and into your opponents. The state of play, at the end of your turn is not static because you can still interact and affect your opponent and likewise you have to account for interruption to your plans sometimes. You're involved in both turns, albeit much less in your opponents, and so more involved with the game and able to make a whole new level of tactical decisions. Shorter intervals of down time are also inherently more involving.

In game 3, which might cover say Epic (Space Marine), you're involved almost constantly. It's like ping pong back and forth and you have to adjust and account for your strategy constantly (almost as if the enemy weren't static statues, standing there letting your whole plan unwind). Yeah I put my devastators on First Fire to smash that falcon detachment but alas I did not realise those jet bikes were within charge range. My opponent has read the board and seen my obvious move and is covering the falcons loaded with aspect warriors as best he can. Luckily I've given my assault marines charge orders and can get them there this turn to save the devastators but my plan is still thwarted. But- and this is why it's so great a system and will forever be one of my favuorites- it was thwarted by my opponent reading me, not his units. Both players are involved constantly in a back and forth. We're both still able to look at the board and formulate plans and watch an opponents plan but- within the limits of orders we've given- we can fight back. There is no alpha strike, no sitting around and you're engaged with the game and your opponent for the majority of play time. In fact if your opponent (or you) can make a plan and successfully execute it under these conditions it is vastly more rewarding simply because you had to anticipate and account for counter plays.

xruslanx wrote:
If you'd like to offer an explanation for the advantages of alternatives I'm all ears.

I believe I have done this. Now of course it's possible that the things I listed don't actually appeal to you. I could be trying to set you up on a blind date with a Victoria's Secret model but if you're not into tall, gorgeous Brazilian women then all the flattering descriptions (no matter how accurate) in the world won't sell you on even giving them a go. Or maybe you're just happily married with the first girl who gave you the time of day and no matter how poor a wife she is, she's still the best you've ever had. But wargames aren't wives, you're allowed to 'cheat' on them and I strongly encourage you to do so with 40k. Maybe that tired old nag really is the perfect one for you but you're never know unless you try something else.

 azreal13 wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
After reading Darklands, it is quite different but has some nice ideas in it, retaining the initiative is a clever rule, I think they missed a lot with the exhaustion mechanism tied in with the hours (turns) mechanism, they should make it progressively deteriorating and have a "rest" (skip turn) revitalization mechanism, like Saga,

Those are essentially the draft rules, so it is entirely possible things like that will enter the game (there's already a similar action to recover from spell casting)

If there's anything you feel strongly about, I'm sure Rob would be interested to hear it, but I think they're fairly well down the line as far written rules go, the book is due to KS backers in June IIRC, so factor in production and shipping times and they're probably not massively far from final copy.

I don't feel strongly about anything and I think the development phase is long into completion for radical gameplay changes.

My observations are on glance and to be really fleshed out need some extensive playtesting, to be fair I am not interested in doing it.

Of course if you feel the game could be improved by them, feel free to share them.

Well fellas,
We tried out an Alpha Order system yesterday....

We played Marines v. Daemons. 1500 pts broken into 500 pt detachments.
We used the old Epic order system with the First Fire, Advance, Fall Back, and Charge orders.
It worked....okay..
We came to find that each unit needed its own order token and detachment orders didnt work so well with different kinds of units. The players liked the idea of giving orders to their units and that there was a built in initiative system by alternating turns with first player / second player.

Soo...
Orders are a definate.
Simple unit actions are a must....maybe use the Special weapon / Heavy weapon as a choice to modify the dice roll against infantry or tanks...Rolling lots more dice doesnt always mean lots more fun..
Vehicles need a more defined roll. Either they are a centrifical part of the game with great in depth rules and points cost to go with them or they need to be simple constructs with simple rules and low points ...special cards for unique damage effects would be fine. And after further consideration.....
I do indeed think the game needs a complete re-write.

Interesting read Andyman. keep us informed; id quite like to hear the development of this.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Well fellas,
We tried out an Alpha Order system yesterday....

We played Marines v. Daemons. 1500 pts broken into 500 pt detachments.
We used the old Epic order system with the First Fire, Advance, Fall Back, and Charge orders.
It worked....okay..

Not surprising, really. straight ports are often gonna have issues.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Well fellas,
We came to find that each unit needed its own order token and detachment orders didnt work so well with different kinds of units. The players liked the idea of giving orders to their units and that there was a built in initiative system by alternating turns with first player / second player.

Regarding the detachment orders, how did you 'organise' the armies? i can imagine if a 'detachment' was, say, 3 tactical squads, then it would be relatively easy to have them pulling the same battlefield role, but i will agree with you; this would fall down with combined arms forces where everything does something slightly different as part of its greater whole. it also sounds like a bit of a headache with book keeping.

Orders are a good mechanism. have a look at starship troopers though. each unit gets 2 actions per turn. for each action they can do things like move, shoot, assault, perform a ready action (necessary for any/all special actions unique to the unit like jetpacks/heavy weapons) and if anyone finishes an action within 10" of one of your squads, they get to perform a free 'action' as their reaction (move away if things get close, shoot, counter charge etc).

I'd also look into a 'scaled up' ARO/reaction system from infinity/starship troopers. rather than 'my turn/your turn', you're dealing with an 'active turn', and a 'reactive turn' more so than alternating turns. It allows for a more engaging game if you ask me.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Well fellas,
Simple unit actions are a must....maybe use the Special weapon / Heavy weapon as a choice to modify the dice roll against infantry or tanks...Rolling lots more dice doesnt always mean lots more fun..

One solution is not to allow mixed loadouts. tank hunting squads hunt tanks. infantry squads gun down infantry. boring, but easy to implement.
Or more along the lines of what you say, have 'squads' or 'platoons' roll a set amount of anti infantry dice depending on their loadouts of small arms and anti infantry weapons (with the emphasis on the 'squad' rolling x anti infantry dice, rather than 10marines contributing 2 shots each. to be fair, small arms dont do a significant amount of killing in real life - they're for suppressing movement mainly, its artillery and your heavy machine guns that do most of the dirty work) or similarly, roll a set amount of anti armour dice, depending on their loadout. not sure if this is practical though.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Well fellas,
Vehicles need a more defined roll. Either they are a centrifical part of the game with great in depth rules and points cost to go with them or they need to be simple constructs with simple rules and low points ...special cards for unique damage effects would be fine.

well, we could have told you that! problem with vehicles is there are a bolt-on to a napoleonics themed wargame mechanics. there is no issue with vehicles per se, but what you are referring to is the 'direction', and 'scope' that is needed for the game. decide for yourselves what you want it to be.
Will it be an infantry-centric game with limited vehicle support (even off field?) with the emphasis on squads of troopers? Will it be armourhammer? You need to decide on what the 'soul' of your game will be.
Regarding the damage, look at how warmachine applies damage to its jacks, based on a grid.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Well fellas,
And after further consideration.....
I do indeed think the game needs a complete re-write.

yup. See above. Define the direction and scope for the game, and then develop mechanics to acheive this and support this.

When we feel froggy we simply do this to shake things up. Movement phase, see how many units you have and alternate movement, with the player who has more moving two units to the other players one until there is a even amount.

Do the same thing for shooting and assaults with one final assault phase to end the round. It really changes things around and helps to balance a ton of the alpha strike opportunities. Not perfect, but it is a nice change from time to time.

Hi all.
For a re write to get a well defined modern BATTLE game .(Including infantry armour artillery and air support.)
IMO,the best way to proceed would be define stats that cover ALL units , and unit interaction in an intuitive and easy to resolve way.(No tables that reduce the number of outcomes to 3 or less options!)

I would use just 3 resolution methods.
A)Direct representation .(Distance of movement /effect, or number of dice rolled.

B)Stat as target score, the (modified) number to beat to make a successful roll.

C)Stat as a dice modifier, the stat value is added to the dice roll to compare to opposed value.

EG
A)Movement Value 6" the model may move up to 6" when taking a movement action/Weapon effective ranges.Number of dice rolled for attacks etc.

B)Morale value 3+.The unit has to roll over 3 to pass a morale test.

C) Armour value (1 to14) is added to the armour save roll (D6). if this value is higher than the weapon hit Armour Penetration value,(4-17) the model passes its armour save roll.